Last week, The Herald published an opinions column (“Abolish the UCS categorization system,” Feb. 14) criticizing the Undergraduate Council of Students’ categorization system. Zach Ingber ’15 argued that abolishing the UCS categorization system would improve extracurricular activities on campus. While I understand that our system is not perfect, I firmly believe that the UCS categorization process allows the University’s limited resources to be used in a way that is far more efficient and equitable than if the system were abolished.
Ingber states that UCS functions “to prevent students from starting a new group should they so desire.” This is untrue. Many student groups exist outside of the UCS categorization process, as they are recognized by academic departments or are independent from the University. However, Brown’s limited resources are a constraint on the number of groups that can exist: student groups already compete for the school’s limited funding and campus spaces; Morning Mail is already too long for most students to stomach and the Activities Fair always has a long wait list for students interested in taking part.
If the UCS categorization process did not exist, the number of groups at Brown would inevitably increase. These groups would then compete for an even smaller pool of funds. How these funds are distributed would become increasingly arbitrary. For instance, groups with a better understanding of the process or more capacity would dominate the resources. Many of these groups could even be overlapping in mission, which is both wasteful and inefficient.
As the number of groups increased, the largest groups would take space and money that smaller groups can currently use. There are certainly a number of groups with a smaller membership that still provide an important resource for students, such as Native Americans at Brown, the Brown University Student Veterans Society and the Association of Central and Eastern European Students — to name a few. These groups require the institutional support of the UCS process in order to compete with larger groups.
As a result of this resource constraint, only a certain number of groups can be funded. The UCS system thus serves as a vetting mechanism to limit groups with overlapping missions or those that pose safety or legal challenges to the University. Furthermore, it allows smaller campus groups with just as important functions as large groups to have equal access to Brown’s limited resources.
Ingber argues that funding should be allocated as if it were a “free market.” However, even he concedes that funding would still be allocated through the Undergraduate Finance Board. Given that funding will still come from a board of students, the UCS categorization process makes funding more efficient and equitable. Because UCS can look into possible groups before they go to UFB — and ask questions like how long the groups have been around, if they have a certain number of involved students and if their leadership structure is sustainable — UFB can focus on funding needs alone. UFB already spends hours analyzing the funding requests it receives from student groups. The categorization process provides helpful information to UFB and also acts as a check on its power.
Some groups may not become categorized, but at the very least, this process can be done by a group of students rather than by the administration, which does it at other schools. The op-ed claims that “the fact that a group of a few students decides whether student organizations can exist is undemocratic.” However, UCS is a student body that consists of at least 70 undergraduate students, led by an elected Executive Board. Our policy allows any student at Brown to join UCS at any point during the semester, ensuring that many voices can be heard on the Council.
UCS oversees hundreds of student groups, and each is evaluated on an individual basis. That said, Ingber’s op-ed cited one particular club called TOMS Campus Club, which he argued should have received categorization. This particular scenario is more complex than Ingber lets on. This group of students requested to be recognized as a “Service Group,” which requires that their “primary purpose [be] to raise funds for off-campus service organizations and have a strong community service mission.” UCS questioned whether a group that was tied to brand promotion for the for-profit TOMS corporation could be designated a “Service Group” under UCS, even if TOMS Campus Club is technically a nonprofit.
We know that our organization has room for improvement, and we encourage students with concerns about UCS operations to express them to us or to join the council. Rather than abolishing the UCS categorization process, the Student Activities Committee will work to re-evaluate its process so that it can continue to best serve the student body.
Alex Drechsler ‘15 is chair of the Student Activities Committee and is responsible for overseeing the UCS categorization process. Any students with additional questions or concerns can contact him at alex_drechsler@brown.edu or studentactivities.ucs@gmail.com.
ADVERTISEMENT
